Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:07:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:07:49 -0400 Received: from tapu.f00f.org ([66.60.186.129]:23215 "EHLO tapu.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:07:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:12:07 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Thunder from the hill Cc: Alan Cox , Zheng Jian-Ming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: problems with changing UID/GID Message-ID: <20020827181207.GA8578@tapu.f00f.org> References: <20020827075426.GA6696@tapu.f00f.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 855 Lines: 25 On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:42:27AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote: I don't think this is cool. I mean, think of how many times we use it, who will eat the overhead? We use it almost never... a few times per process at most. And the overhead will be nonexistent except in cases where the caller has to wait on the lock --- and in those cases it seems totally reasonable they *should* have to wait. Basically everyone. (And BTW, if we can't even afford one lock per module, how could we efford one jock per job? There are definitely more.) I'm not sure what you mean here. --cw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/